The historiography of the Habsburg monarchy in the Russian intellectual tradition of the nineteenth and Early twentieth Centuries Текст научной статьи по специальности «История и археология»

ЕВРОПА В ПРОШЛОМ Europe in the Past

O.V. Pavlenko

THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF THE HABSBURG MONARCHY IN THE RUSSIAN INTELLECTUAL TRADITION OF THE NINETEENTH AND EARLY TWENTIETH CENTURIES

О.В. Павленко

Историография Габсбургской монархии в российской интеллектуальной традиции XIX - начала XX веков

There are certain topics in historiography that have a special destiny. Depending on public preferences, they regularly go from being the talk of the town and provoking stormy debates to being completely neglected. In the Russian intellectual tradition, the process of understanding of the Habsburg monarchy phenomenon underwent several stages. Surges of keen interest were followed by the periods when the subject lost its relevancy and the history of the Danubian monarchy was perceived merely as a background for more important processes taking place on Slavic territories. Then the comparative studies of empires provoked a renewal of interest in the comprehensive study of monarchy that, in its turn, rekindled relevant discussions and brought about the development of new concepts. Despite a long tradition of nearly one hundred and fifty years, the Russian historiography of the Habsburg monarchy had never developed into a separate intellectual project. The reason lies in a long-term existence of several factors directly affecting the state of historiography of the subject.

Factors that Influenced the Historiography of the Habsburg Monarchy

These factors can be divided into three groups: (1) geopolitical factors; (2) Slavic factors; (3) disruptions in the tradition of schools of thought and drastic paradigm shifts within Russian historical studies.

A combination of geopolitical factors brought about a particular vision of "Empire" as the core code of Russia's collective identity1. This particular perspective in the history of state-building came to be deci-

sive in the study of the Habsburg monarchy as compared to Russia. Both states constituted major polysynthetic empires in the east of Europe. One of them comprised certain regions of Central Europe and a part of the Balkans, the other one, a gigantic Eurasian space. But the majority of nations united under Habsburg rule already enjoyed the heritage of parlia-mentarianism and state-building. Whereas the ethnocultural composition of Russia was, on the contrary, so heterogeneous, with glaring contrasts and conflicts, that it constantly required the highest concentration of powers of the centre to maintain control over restless provinces. Russian authorities always generated a power of geopolitical expansion. Government's efficiency was largely determined by its capacity to annex and preserve new territories. It should come as no surprise then that Russia regarded as an evidence of decline of the Habsburg state its loss of certain territories in the second half of the nineteenth century. Constitutional experiments in Vienna, a search for national and civil consensus coincided with the Great Reforms in Russia. But having nearly made it to a constitution, Russia was turned away from it towards a traditional unitary order. The focus shifted from the development of parliamentarianism to a geopolitical expansion in Central Asia, the Caucasus and the Far East. In this respect, Russia was much more of an empire with a strong solid centre than Austria-Hungary. Nonetheless, it was the experience of Austria-Hungary that turned out to be the most coveted at the beginning of the twentieth century, when the sprouts of parliamentarianism started to appear on the political landscape of Russia, and the constitution-related debates resumed within its society.

Throughout history, a special system of codes and meanings is formed within cultures of states and societies, and they are revealed by means of symbolic interaction between self and other2. Theoretical speculations of the Russian school led by Mikhail Bakhtin on the gnoseological and ontological bases of the "dialogue of cultures" allowed to expand the scope of interdisciplinary approach. The process of separation of self from other always created special meanings in the Russian intellectual tradition. The Habsburg and Romanov monarchies were linked not only by a common border but also by a long-term historical cooperation, in the course of which was formed a multilevel sociocultural system of communications. For several centuries, the awareness of the collective Russian self of itself, its singularity and relevance came about through its contacts with the Austrian other, with which it had in common both concurring and opposing geopolitical interests. A whole array of images of the other, perceived as friend-enemy-rival-competitor-ally, clearly manifested itself in the Russian-Austrian diplomatic relations and public perceptions, including historiographic projections.

The Slavic factors, in my opinion, had the biggest impact on the topic-related priorities and approaches in Russian research. There are numerous preconceptions surrounding the "Slavic question," given that it is very difficult to draw a line between a scientific discourse and a political

update of the Slavdom topic with its inevitable distortions and speculations. The history of Slavic nationalism invariably contained stormy debates on the role of Russia. In any historiography - Russian, Czech, Slovak, Polish, Serb, Slovenian, Bulgarian or Ukrainian - the subject of Russia's influence has always been one of the most sensitive ones. Despite an abundance of interpretations, it is not difficult to draw the conclusion that over the last two centuries it formed a fairly strong tradition of studying the history of Slavic nations against the background of the geopolitical Russia versus Europe/West dichotomy.

In Russia, the Slavic agenda traditionally occupies its own niche in historiography and public opinion. It comprises domestic and international contexts since it is closely linked to the research into the processes of state-building and collective identity of the Russian Empire, the understanding of the role of the Slavic question in both bilateral relations between Moscow and Vienna and diplomatic combinations of the entire "European concert" of the second half of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth centuries.

The third factor, disruptions in the tradition of schools of thought and paradigm shifts, had a considerable impact on the approaches and methods of Russian research of the Habsburg monarchy. The Russian historical science suffered two major disruptions in the intellectual tradition, and each time a change of political system brought about a new historiography that began with an emphatic rejection of the previous tradition. Following the October revolution of 1917, positivism was replaced by the Marxist-Leninist methodology based on class approach and theory of social formation that remained dominant up until the collapse of the USSR. The nineties witnessed stormy historiographic discussions between "pro-Western specialists" and "nationalists," as well as an overall "methodological shock." It was only by the beginning of the twenty-first century that appeared new schools of thought, integrated into international environment, and started to develop interdisciplinary research meth-ods3.

This article will bear on the studies that, in my opinion, constituted an intellectual breakthrough and laid down new research areas in the Russian historiography of the Habsburg monarchy. Thousands of papers were written over the past one hundred and fifty years, and it is a challenging task to select the most important ones among them. All the more so since any selection is highly subjective, depending on author's preferences and vision of historiographic situation. The suggested schema does not claim to present a universal classification. It is more of an attempt to reveal the principal directions in which progressed the knowledge of the Habsburg monarchy and its Slavic nature, of the relations between Moscow and Vienna in the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth centuries. Already in 1995 an attempt was made to carry out a comprehensive research of the Soviet historiography on Austria-Hungary initiated by the "Austrian History Yearbook". A research team led by Tofik Islamov, head

of the Department of History of Austro-Hungarian Nations, Institute for Slavic and Balkan Studies, analysed the key directions and progress of the Soviet historiography and revealed its specific nature4.

Having analysed various possibilities, I have opted for a chronological principle. It would make it easier to feel the mood of the times in different historical eras, to see the way that intellectual preferences and political updating affected research methodology, infiltrating research papers.

Slavonic Studies and History of the Habsburg Monarchy at the End of the Nineteenth, Beginning of the Twentieth Centuries

Since the second half of the nineteenth century, a new school began to develop in Russia, the academic Slavonic studies5. Chairs of Slavic philology were set up in major universities of Moscow, Petersburg, Warsaw, Tartu and Kiev, where they taught not only Slavic languages and literature but also the history of Slavic nations, both ancient and modern. There were no special Slavic History chairs. But it was obligatory for every single university, as well as ecclesiastical and military academies, even the Higher Courses for Women (vysshie zhenskie kursy), to have in their curriculum courses on the history and literature of Slavic nations; they published special magazines such as "Slavyanskie Izvestiya", "Slavyanskoe Obozrenie", etc.6. Thus, gradually took shape a tradition of studying Slavic nations separately, regardless of their state affiliation and the general history of the Habsburg monarchy. It was one of those cases in historiography when the principle of ethnicity overpowered the principle of historicism. The history and culture of Slavic nations were turning into independent research subjects, thus leading to a dual perception of the Habsburg monarchy and a fundamental distortion of its history that was divided into a "Slavic" and a "non-Slavic" one.

There are two reasons that can explain the clear separation of Austrian Slavs from the general Austrian history that became so typical of the Russian historiography. Firstly, the emergence of Slavonic studies coincided with the construction of a new collective identity of the Russian Empire based on the Slavdom code (Russia as a centre of Slavic world with no boundaries or dividing lines)7. Secondly, the impulse to set the history of Slavic nations aside as separate research subjects, regardless of their dependence on Austria-Hungary, was coming from the Austrian Slavs themselves. National movements grew aware of their identity and political goals in opposition to the centre - Vienna and Osterreicher-tum. It is commonly known that future Russian professors had to serve a two- to three-year internship abroad, particularly in German universities, then go on a journey through Slavic lands where they were supposed to visit local archives and libraries, monuments and museums. A voluminous correspondence of the time between Russian scientists and their colleagues from Slavic lands of Austria-Hungary indicates active scien-

tific cooperation and a considerable Czech, Slovak and Polish influence on the development of Slavonic studies in Russia. All the more so since this new discipline was already taught in the universities of Prague, Vienna, Belgrade, Sofia and others by the end of the nineteenth century8.

The multidisciplinary Slavonic studies encompassing historical, linguistic, ethnographic and culturological research were a unique phenomenon in Russian humanities. Formed at the confluence of romantic fascination with Slavic reciprocity and academic interest in common cultural and historical heritage, the academic Slavonic studies, having survived the temptation of the political Pan-Slavism in 1860-1880, made a serious progress by the end of the nineteenth century9. Considerable achievements were accomplished in comparative Slavic philology and auxiliary sciences of history (Slavic palaeography, sphragistics, numismatics, archaeology).

However, according to Lyudmila Lapteva, an expert in the history of Slavonic studies, it took historians a long time to break away from Pan-Slavic interpretations. Only in 1870-1880 the positivist methodology allowed to gradually oust from academic papers the speculations on the "great future of Slavic world" and the ideas of unconditional Rus-sophilism of foreign Slavs. But Russian historiography had never managed to fully overcome the "Slavophilistic approach"10.

Liberal professor Alexandr Pypin was a prominent representative of the critical positivism. He conducted a major comparative study of the way the academic Slavonic studies and the ideology of Pan-Slavism developed in Russia, Austria-Hungary and the Balkans based on different printed sources of the 17th-19th centuries11. As a gutsy polemist, he took a stand against Slavophilism. Long before the "linguistic change of course" of the eighties, Pypin analysed literary works as a reflection of the "internal organic process" of formation of the nations of modern Eastern Europe. He used numerous examples to prove that the factor of statehood was of a particular importance for the forming Slavic nations. The Austrian Slavs, in his opinion, were closely related to the Habsburg dynasty and the Austrian-German culture for centuries, they shared a common historical experience of coexistence of various nations within the boundaries of the Danubian monarchy. They used their "ostentatious Russophilism" as a political tool to fight for their rights but by no means to reunite with Russia, as seemed to think certain Russian Panslavists12. The very existence of Slavic movements in Austria-Hungary provoked fierce debates about the Russian Identity among the intellectuals. Virtually all Slavic communities with their territorial claims and awareness of their role in Europe served as study subjects. Scientific justification for these processes was reflected at first in the logical positivism of historical and philological studies of Slavic nations, then later in general socio-political writings.

Starting from the second half of the nineteenth century, an in-depth study of Slavdom was accompanied by a growth of interest in the his-

tory and current situation of Austria-Hungary, despite the fact that the Russian-Austrian relations kept on swinging from rapprochement to a dramatic chill. Major statistical studies were translated into Russian on an annual basis. A particular attention was paid to military statistics and financial situation of the state13.

In historical studies, one can make out three topical clusters that attracted the most attention. First of all, it was the magnificent eighteenth century when the German policy of Catherine the Great brought about a considerable rapprochement between Petersburg and Vienna. Russian historians still hold in high esteem the writings of Pavel Mitrofanov that provide a detailed analysis of the domestic and foreign policy of Joseph II, his attempt to combine state pragmatism and idealism, the reasons for his interest in Russia14. The prevailing opinion was that the union of two empires allowed to advocate common interests in the "Eastern question," despite their differences in the vision of the role of the Ottoman Empire in European policy. Nonetheless, Russian research emphasized the fact that the support of Vienna enabled Russia to integrate into Europe as a great power. Just as much interest provoked the evolution of relations between the two empires within the Holy Alliance and the policy of State Chancellor Metternich15.

Since the second half of the nineteenth century, the diplomatic collections of imperial archives have gradually become accessible to the public. There were published treaties with foreign powers, official correspondence, diplomatic reports. A multi-volume edition by Friedrich Martens that laid the foundations of a systematic study of the foreign policy history of Russia was particularly valuable16. Researchers used these documents to prove that the relations between Petersburg and Vienna, sealed by the Holy Alliance, were far from the principles of a conservative legitimism. Despite their ostentatious solidarity, the contradictions between the two empires continued to intensify. There were many reasons for that: the Jewish question, relations with the Slavs, the status of Baltic Germans. Famous specialist of diplomatic history Sergej Tatichtchev proved that ever since 1837 Russia had tried to become closer to England, the most important financial and economic power in the world, which greatly irritated Metternich. It was only the Spring of Nations in 1848-1849 that reminded the two empires of their allied obligations in the face of revolutionary unrest in Hungary and Galicia17.

In the second place, particular interest aroused the military history of Austria-Hungary. Since the end of the nineteenth century, a series of lectures on the history of Austrian victories and defeats, army development and military reforms was prepared for the officers of the General Staff Academy18. The third in order of importance and number of publications was the history of Austrian parliamentarianism, the development of legislative system and insurance policy19. Even a brief review allows to make a conclusion: for all the information abundance and a strong interest in its closest European neighbour, there was no major work written on

the subject in Russia. General studies reflected a "divided" history, with a clear separation between "Germans/Hungarians" and the "downtrodden Slavs"20. Despite a critical vision of the policy of liberal compromises of the Habsburg monarchy, Russia closely followed the development of its parliamentarianism. The nostalgia for a once close yet lost ally, who maintained his sociocultural appeal for the Russian society for all their diplomatic differences, tinges the historical research dating back to the cusp of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

Ideological Priorities and Topics Analysed in Soviet Historiographic Studies, 1930-1980

After the revolution and the collapse of the Romanov dynasty, a new historiography was created drawing on the synthesis of works of Marx, Engels and Lenin - Marxism-Leninism. Marx's great social and economic theory and Lenin's revolutionary theory were simplified and brought together into a general methodology of class struggle and formational approach. Pluralism of opinions was out of the question. Soviet historians were supposed to use quotes from the "classical authors of Marxism-Leninism" as their basic arguments in reference to various historical subjects. In hostile environment of censorship, the methodology of study of all historical eras and processes was determined by the principle of class struggle. Scientists had no other choice but to broaden their knowledge through archival research and reconstruct historical narratives to the last detail. Archival positivism became a sort of response to the submission of historical studies to political goals. Any conceptual deviation from the "classics" and attempts to create new theories could have led to repressions.

The Soviet historiography of the Habsburg monarchy was also unable to escape this fate. From the very beginning, it evolved within the narrow bounds of comments of Marx and Engels on Austrian topics, published mainly by "Neue Rheinische Zeitung" during the revolutionary period of 1848-1849, that called for a Pan-German revolutionary march against the "reactionary Slavs" and imperial Russia and assailed the Habsburg policy21. The negative judgements of Marx and Engels regarding the "reactionary nature" of Slavic nations, caused by their bitter disappointment in the "Spring of Nations," became some sort of postulate for the Soviet historical school. One of its founding fathers, Mikhail Pokrovsky, claimed that Pan-Slavism and the support of Slavic movements served the "reactionary purposes of the tsarist government"22. Particular emphasis was also placed on the critical assessment of the Habsburg state as a "prison of nations" made by Lenin in his writings, in which he analysed the ways of dealing with the issue of inter-ethnic relations23. This political scepticism with regard to the Danubian monarchy, typical of the "classics of Marxism-Leninism," defined the methods of Soviet historiography for years to come.

Following the revolution, the Slavonic studies as a comprehensive discipline found itself in a deep crisis. Ideologues of Marxism-Leninism considered it a product of "reactionary Pan-Slavism." Many reputed scientists (A. Pogodin, V. Frantsev, I. Yastrebov, etc.) were forced to emigrate. Russian universities were hit by a series of waves of reorganisation, "bourgeois professors" were cleaned out and replaced by the "red professordom," the ideologues of Marxism-Leninism. The Academy of Sciences lost its autonomy24. Academician Nikolaj Derzhavin tried to resurrect the tradition of comprehensive research in the Leningrad Institute of Slavic Studies that he created in 1931. He intended to use the Marxist-Leninist ideology in order to explicate the history of class struggle in the new Slavic countries formed as a result of the Treaty of Versailles. Slavic linguistics was to become a tool of class development, a future projection of revolutionary outbursts. But this audacious project did not last long. Already in the middle of the thirties broke out the "Affair of Slavicists" that led to the arrest of over 70 scientists in Moscow and Leningrad, and the Institute was closed25.

Priorities of Marxist-Leninist ideology were also reflected in the diplomatic history. The Bolsheviks disavowed the historical experience of Tsarist Russia, accusing the Romanov dynasty and government of "imperialistic ambitions" and unleashing of World War One. The history of Russian revolutions and revolutionary movements was being written on a clean slate, with not only the Habsburg monarchy but also the Romanov Empire viewed as a black and white issue, a necessary evil overcome by forward-thinking classes. A new diplomatic history was being created on the heels of events, capitalizing on the wave of massive declassification of tsarist documents26.

By revealing the secrets of imperial chancelleries, the new government pointedly declined responsibility for any commitments of the overthrown monarchy. Originally, the Soviet approach to the study of foreign policy of the Russian Empire was focused on exposing the "cahoots" between bourgeois governments. Already in the twenties, the editors of "Krasnyj Arkhiv" were forced to admit that the first releases "were thrown together hastily, that would have been the end of any argument about 'parties at fault,' not because there weren't any but because everyone was to blame, and way more than they thought they were"27.

There was a dramatic change in historiography during World War Two and the first postwar decade. Soviet ideology had once again turned to the slavophile idea of an "age-long struggle between Slavdom and Germandom." The Kremlin began to discuss a project of a "new Slavic movement" in Europe. In 1941 was founded the All-Slavic Committee, publisher of "Slavyane" magazine, there were organised All-Slavic rallies28. Starting approximately from 1944, the USSR began to promote a new strategy designed to include Central and Eastern European countries in its zone of geopolitical influence. The historical policy had once again made a steep turn, having revived its "Slavic heritage" but this time

based on Marxism-Leninism. Historical studies were charged with a task "of summarising the revolutionary and democratic experience, as well as the class struggle of Slavic nations," articulated by the Soviet delegation at the Slavic Congress Reunion in Belgrade in 194629.

In reality, it was a state order for the history of national radicalism and revolutionary movement of Slavic nations. In the forties were created the Institute of Slavic Studies of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR and the Department of Southern and Western Slavic History of the Moscow State University. Even though already by the end of the forties the Kremlin had given up its "Slavic project," the Slavic discourse continued to be relevant in historical research all throughout the Soviet era. The sovieti-sation of Eastern and East-Central European countries raised the issue of heritage of Austria-Hungary that turned out to be divided and this time not on paper but by the actual national frontiers. The majority of Eastern and East-Central European countries became part of the Soviet block. It is small wonder that after the beginning of the Cold War the neutral Austria became the focus of particular attention from the USSR and the USA. Both states were well aware of the political and symbolic importance of Vienna for Central and Eastern European nations. The very idea of perceiving Austria-Hungary as an integration core of the Danube region was a challenge in itself, provoking division between historians of Eastern and Western Europe.

In the fifties, a project for the study of the "united state and all-Austrian idea (Gesamtstaatsidee)," supported by the Rockefeller Foundation and several major US universities, began to develop in Austria30. At the same time, other thematic priorities were gaining their place in Soviet historiography. Let us review some of the trends that prevailed in Soviet research of the Habsburg monarchy.

Firstly, the highest priority was given to the history of protest movements in various regions governed by the monarchy, the status of working social groups, the evolution of radical nationalist parties and ideologies. In other words, Soviet historiography was focused on labour- and peasant-related issues. The topic of revolutions and their continuity in Europe was essential for Marxist historiography. Any manifestation of social conflicts became the subject of the most detailed study. This tradition was established already in 1948, at the moment of celebration of the "Spring of Nations"31. Revekka Averbukh, Sergej Kan, and Ivan Udal'tsov subjected to sharp criticism the national liberal forces that "betrayed" the revolutionary cause. The importance of extremist groups was greatly exaggerated. Austroslavism, the motto of the Prague Slavic Congress of 1848, was seen as a "reactionary and conservative" phenomenon. It must be noted that Marxist publications from Eastern and East-Central European countries significantly affected the progress of Soviet historiography. These writings were translated into Russian and always accompanied by reviews of Soviet historians in leading magazines. Russian historians adopted a conceptual approach only if it did not contradict the

"classics of Marxism-Leninism"32. In the history of the Habsburg monarchy a key emphasis was placed on the revolutions of 1848-49. They were the starting point in the development of labour movement and history of social democracy. Thus, there was established a historical continuity between the revolutions of 1848, the Russian revolutions of 1905 and 1917 and the revolutions of 191833.

Secondly, a separate discipline focused on the history of Pan-Germanism began to develop starting from the sixties. It originated at the confluence of German and Slavonic studies with a focus on the ideological mission of fighting against the Ostforschung, the Eastern European research that was gaining momentum in Western historiography. There were published the collections of "Slavyano-germanskie issledovaniya" featuring the narratives of confrontation between Slavic nations and German community, from colonization to two world wars. In this context, the Habsburg monarchy was obviously seen as an oppressive state, a tool of political supremacy of Germans over Slavs34. The choice of historical sources was very selective, thus giving even academic discussions a tone of violent political controversy.

The review of Drang nach Osten in the seventies and eighties is a textbook example of penetration of politics into science and vice versa. But here, similar to the study of revolutionary movements, Soviet historiography was affected by the subjects and approaches of the national historiographies of Eastern and East-Central European countries dominated primarily by the concept of "liberation movements." At that time, Soviet historiography begins to actively work with diplomatic sources on German politics kept in Russian archives, to reconstruct in detail the interactions between Russia, Austria, Germany and England in the Balkans on the cusp of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, to analyse the institutional and ideological foundations of the Austrian Pan-German movement.

Thirdly, a new research area began to gather momentum since the end of the sixties, turning into a priority one in the eighties and managing to preserve its status in the post-Soviet historiography as well. The area in question is the comparative study of Slavic factor in the ideology of national movements and the politics of the Russian Empire. At that time, the Institute of History of the Academy of Sciences was divided into the Institute of Russian History and the Institute of World History. Accordingly, the Slavonic studies were concentrated in the Institute of Slavonic Studies and the Department of Southern and Western Slavic History of the Moscow State University, whereas the Austrian and German Studies, in the Institute of World History. That said, the history of Russian diplomacy was being analysed in all three Institutes. Such a division of institutions secured the academic dualism in the Habsburg studies, but it was no longer based on the "Slavic" criterion. The Institute of Slavic Studies was charged with studying the Romanian and Hungarian history, as for the Institute of World History, it was focused on the Austro-German and

Austro-Italian history, as well as the history of Austrian lands.

In the sixties-eighties, the system concepts of the history of the Habsburg monarchy were elaborated and the Central European discourse asserted itself in the West, while in the USSR it was opposed by the Slavic discourse up until the beginning of the nineties. Under heavy pressure of ideological censorship, Soviet historians took little heed of comprehensive approach. It is no wonder that the historiographical image of Austria-Hungary was painted in black and white. The dominant "Austro-German" reactionary feudal and bourgeois groups opposed the "progressive" revolutionary and democratic movements, but the latter still managed to ensure the destruction of the Habsburg Empire. This simplified image was built by the first generation of Marxist historians (Vladimir Turok, Aleksandr Ivanovich Molok) under the influence of their close contacts with Austrian social democrats and communists in the twenties. The next generation (Tofik Islamov, Il'ya Galkin, Vladimir Izrailevic Frejdzon, Il'ya Miller), although still shackled by Marxist-Leninist methodology, was already more open to new concepts and ideas35.

The international contacts enabling to create "scientific bridges" between East and West and break through the walls of academic isolation assumed a considerable significance in the sixties-eighties. The sixties were marked by the magic of landmark anniversary celebrations: 50th anniversary of the beginning and the end of the World War One; 100th anniversary of the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867; 50th anniversary of the collapse of the monarchy and the creation of new states. To commemorate these dates, there were organised major international conferences in Bloomington (USA), Vienna, Bratislava, and Warsaw; multi-authored publications saw the light of day. Soviet historians were able to participate in these conferences. Under the influence of academic communications, historiographic images, approaches and research methodology gradually began to undergo some adjustments. One can distinguish several major topics that initiated the process of rethinking and departure from the "Marxist-Leninist directives."

Slavic Ideology and Slavic Question in the Habsburg Monarchy and Russia

This topic was not addressed by Soviet historiography until the end of the sixties. While there were hundreds of papers written on the subject in the Russian Empire, especially during the last decades of its existence, Marxist historiography considered it to be a marginal issue. Two factors have drastically changed the situation. For one thing, already in the fifties foreign researchers began to manifest keen interest in Pan-Slavism that was interpreted as one of the types of nationalism of the developing Slavic communities. But the historiographic stand was rather one-dimensional, which was generally typical of the Cold War period. American historians made direct comparisons between the situation in

Austria-Hungary and the sovietisation of Eastern Europe. The question of limits of acceptable analogies and the actual part that Pan-Slavism played in the foreign policy of the imperial Russia was not even raised. All the more so, as Western historians had no access to a major part of diplomatic documents. There was created a historiographic myth about the existence of a Russian project of an all-Slav empire that was accepted even by the most reputable encyclopaedias36. Such a blatant politiciza-tion of the subject of Pan-Slavism in the West resulted in its ban in the USSR. "Slavyanskie komitety v Rossii v 1858-1876 gg.", a brilliant paper by Sergej Nikitin based on an in-depth analysis of archival records and press, constituted a breakthrough in the research of Pan-Slavism and Slavic policy in Russia37.

For another thing, the Czech historiography of the sixties witnessed stormy debates on the role of Russophilism and Slavdom (slovanstvi) in the national movement of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth centuries. Even though the Marxist writings of Zdenek Nejedly about the revolutionary "Russo-Slavic brotherhood," reflecting the official stance, were reprinted in the USSR and Czechoslovakia, there began fierce discussions around the Slavic topic launched by the Slavic Institute in Prague. Two approaches, apologetic and critical, confronted at major conferences in Bratislava in 1959 and 1961, in Smolenice in 1959 and 1966, in Opava in 1966. The focus of these debates was the interpretation of value dimensions in the study of national identity and regulatory bias, myths and reality within the general context of Slavic subject. The question was raised as to what would be "in the best interests" of the national goals of Czechs and Slovaks? There were many various speculations on this point. Importantly, for the first time was raised a question of historical terminology and its modern interpretations. In the twentieth century, the all-Slavic notions created in the nineteenth century, like chameleons, were changing their connotation and meanings in response to the political environment. A consensus was reached concerning the use of the base concept of slovanstvi that encompasses the entire bulk of historically changing forms of collective consciousness reflecting the idea of Slavic community. The prime objective was to bring to light the very core of this phenomenon and to determine its relations with other components of national ideology. The evolution of the critical slovanstvi theory was interrupted for nearly twenty years due to the Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 and the ideological purges in universities and academic institutions that followed. But the intellectual potential of Czech and Slovak discussions gave an impetus to a new interpretation of the Slavonic topic in the Soviet historiography of the eighties.

A first attempt was made by Vladimir Volkov in 1969, when he tried to compare the Pan-German and Pan-Slavic movements under the Habsburg Monarchy38. But there was no continuation to this ambitious attempt. Researchers of Slavic ideology chose to stay away from terminological discussions, invoking the absence of clear criteria for classifi-

cation.

Already in the eighties, the Soviet Slavonic studies had amassed a considerable amount of empirical materials regarding the nation formation processes in Central and South-Eastern Europe, which allowed to proceed to a large-scale comparative analysis. Key emphasis was still placed on the study of Slavic ideology. It was recognized that this ideology was created in opposition to Italian and German processes of unification, as well as in response to Hungarian nationalism. In contradiction to former Marxists directives was recognized the leading role of national businessmen and intelligentsia. But the evaluation criteria ("reactionary" bourgeois liberals and "progressive" bourgeois democrats) continued to be reproduced39.

In a major general publication "Osvoboditel'nye dvizheniya narodov Avstrijskoj imperii" (1981), a special article was dedicated to the typology of "Slavisms." Vladimir I. Frejdzon distinguished "progressive and reactionary moments" in the nationalism of each "small nation". Various projects of Slavic solidarity were, in his opinion, but tools used by diverse nationalist parties to achieve their own political goals40. Thus, the idea of slovanstvi being secondary to the national "self discourse," defended in the sixties by the critical historiography of Czechoslovakia, was accepted by Soviet historians twenty years later. Types of nationalist movements were devised with due account for local characteristics, social structure and the role of Slavic ideology in Polish (Svetlana Falk-ovich, Alexei Miller, Leonid Gorizontov), Croatian (Frejdzon, Sergej Romanenko), Slovenian (Iskra Churkina), Czech and Slovak territories (Lyudmila Lapteva, Zoya Nenasheva, Klavdia Gogina). Soviet historiography abandoned the ideas of unconditional Russophilism of foreign Slavs, it analysed their pragmatic interests in relations with Russia, as well as Habsburg priorities. Lyudmila Lapteva made a considerable contribution to a new interpretation of Russo-Slavic relations, she managed to use an enormous mass of sources from academic archives to reconstruct the development of scientific ties of Russia with foreign scientific communities and to prove the maturity of the Russian positivist school of Slavonic studies at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries.

Significant results were achieved in the studies of Russia's Slavic policy. The ideas expressed by Sergej Nikitin were carried on by his pupils, Iskra Churkina and Vladimir Matula. In archives, they managed to find a group of documents shedding light on various aspects of activities of Mikhail Rayevsky (1811-1884), arch-priest of the Russian ambassadorial church in Vienna, and his extensive contacts with Austrian Slavs in the second half of the nineteenth century. The Neo-Slavism research carried out by Zoya Nenasheva significantly complemented the knowledge of "Slavic projects" in Russia and Russian-Austrian diplomatic relations in the beginning of the twentieth century41.

Typology of Nationalist Movements under the Habsburg Monarchy

The turning point in Soviet historiography stemmed from a refusal to blindly idealise the anti-Habsburg liberation movements. It was understood that the humanistic oriented "cultural nationalism" of the age of Enlightenment and Romanticism, embodied by the ideal figure of "citizen of the world" on the cusp of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, made way for the "integral nationalism," radical and belligerent. This new type of nationalism was directed not only against the polyethnic monarchy, but also against other nations in general co-existing under the same state-operated roof. These issues were discussed at a joint meeting of the Czech-Yugoslav Commission.

But the theory of complete and incomplete social structure of nationalist movements in Austria-Hungary, developed in the seventies and eighties by Il' Miller, Vladimir Frejdzon and Tofik Islamov under the influence of writings of Polish historian Jozef Chlebowczyk, was the one that reflected most fully the new trends. In the social structure of emerging nations, the emphasis was laid on the "historical nobility" as carrier of "historical conscience." In conformity with this theory, the movements that preserved historical elites (Hungarian, Polish) were the ones that achieved the best results in the consolidation of the nations of modern Europe. This approach made it possible to deviate from the standard Marxist-Leninist scheme, to focus academic research on a comprehensive analysis of collective identities of the nations of Austria-Hungary. It can be said that the eighties witnessed a break with Slavocentrism that opened up new opportunities and horizons for a system research.

Habsburg Studies in Russia in the 1990s and 2000s: Methodology, Interpretation, Research Practices

Over the last twenty-five years, the Russian historiography has witnessed monumental debates and methodological schisms, search for new narratives, declassification of archives and change of generations. To this day, the community of professional historians is unable to overcome the so-called "civilization gaps" and restore the continuity between the imperial, Soviet and post-Soviet periods. To this day, the society is being rocked by heated debates about revolutions and wars, Soviet heritage and codes of collective identity42.

Following the collapse of the USSR, the interpretation of the historical past underwent a considerable transformation in both collective memory and academic science. This situation was similar to the one experienced by Austria after the World War II, when the historical image of the Habsburg Monarchy had been recreated through major research projects and reinvented in public discourse, thus becoming the key code for the new Austrian identity. A particular emphasis was laid on the reinterpreta-

tion of the role played by Austria-Hungary in the lives of peoples of Central and South-Eastern Europe43. In the 1990s, the images of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union were reconstructed anew in the collective memory of post-Soviet states. And while for the Russian historiography this process has been unfolding within the confines of nationwide and civil codes, the national historiographies of post-Soviet societies so far tend to reject their common historical experience. The "Empire" episode is seen above all as a way of asserting their own national origins.

The reinterpretation of the history of the Habsburg Monarchy in the Russian historiography began in the 1990s, along with the new trends in the analysis of the Russian empire. It was particularly important for historians not only to integrate the imperial experience of Russia into the big picture of its history, but also to explain the way it was reflected in the memory culture of its modern society. In recent studies, the development of the Russian state is usually described in terms of plurality and integ-rity44. The main emphasis is on the historical experience of coexistence and its multicultural component. This approach makes the Russian and Austrian historiographies similar in their analysis of the phenomenon of a polysynthetic state. But historians differ greatly in their assessment of efficiency of the models of evolution of these two monarchies in Central and Eastern Europe.

In the 1990s, the "nationalism" remained the key concept that Russian researchers turned to in order to describe the crisis phenomena in the history of the Habsburg Monarchy. They used to analyze national movements from the viewpoint of practicability and efficiency of political actions. Through this approach, emerged a very simple and understandable scheme, where the history of the monarchy was reduced to the process of social and cultural emancipation of ethnic groups from the "oppression" of "German centralism". And despite the fundamental changes in research methodology, despite new, more sophisticated terms and approaches, the traditional opposition between nationalism and empire continued to persist.

From the beginning of the 1990s, the focal point of the new historiography was the Department of History of the Austro-Hungarian Nations, Institute for Slavic Studies, headed by Tofik Islamov. His publications on the history of Hungary and Austria in the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries, featuring most recent trends in foreign research, had a major impact on the creation of a comprehensive approach to the history of the Habsburg Monarchy. The Department became the center of attraction for leading researchers aiming to overcome previous methodological "gaps" in ethnic and nationwide narratives. Prominent scholars from Austria, Hungary, USA, Germany, Canada came here. They prepared joint publications on the controversial aspects of the history of Austria-Hungary. This opened new perspectives in the understanding of social, economic and political processes. For the first time, the works of such distinguished authors, as Solomon Wank, Péter Hának, Valeria Heu-

berger, John C. Swanson, and Harry Cohen, were published in Russian.

One can only deplore the fact that the collections containing the documents of several international conferences on the Austro-Hungarian history have never turned into big thematic publications. However, they did boost further Russian research and closer contacts with foreign scholars. This cooperation in the interpretation of the history of the Habsburg Monarchy is a perfect example of the underlying processes taking place within the Russian humanities, where new ideas and approaches continue to interpenetrate and reshape one another, thus destroying the existing boundaries and barriers and creating a common research area.

The current historiographic situation in Russia is rich in alternative hypotheses and interpretations. In my opinion, there are several schools of thought that considerably improve the insight into the history of Austria-Hungary: 1) comparative imperial studies; 2) studies of intercommunications and inter-influences based on the constructivist methodology; 3) Slavic integration projects in the diplomatic relations between Vienna and Petersburg; 4) a humanitarian dimension of the Russo-Austrian relations.

The writings of Solomon Wank and Péter Hanâk had a particular impact on the genesis of new schools of thought and approaches in the historical research of the Habsburg Monarchy in Russia. Tofik Islamov and Vladimir Freidzon, by means of their conceptual papers, engaged in controversy with Austrian scholars, thus creating a critical yet highly interested discussion of the most recent concepts and narratives in the world historiography of the Habsburg Monarchy45.

At the same time, one can't help but feel that the Russian studies in the 1990s played second fiddle to the Western research. They tended to have a particular predilection for archive documents and historiographic analysis. A substantial corpus of archive documents has always been the Russian standard of academic research. And due to a massive declassi-fication of new funds in Russian archives, historians were faced with a very complex task. On the one hand, new, unknown sources had to be introduced into a scientific discourse. On the other hand, the Russian historical science was seriously lagging behind the methodologies of the Western humanities.

It was highly important to become familiar with foreign theories and research practices, to make sense of new notions, as well as the intellectual line of reasoning previously beyond the reach of the Soviet historiography. In the 1990s, a new comprehensive approach has been making its way, overcoming the resistance of advocates of the traditional pro-Slavic narrative of the history of Central and South-Eastern Europe. As such, two alternative discourses, Central European and Slavic, have been co-existing in the Russian historiography for nearly a decade. Only in the first decade of the twentieth century did their methodological convergence finally begin, consequently shaping the domestic infrastructure of the Austrian research.

At present, its scope is quite extensive. The key research centers are located in Moscow and Saint Petersburg. They collaborate closely with the regional schools that appeared in the Caucasus area, i.e. Stavropol46 and Tambov47. One should also note a particular interest that the scholars from Tomsk48, Nizhny Novgorod49, and Voronezh50 show to the Austrian theme.

In Moscow, each research center specializes in a particular area of the Habsburg studies, thus ensuring their complementarity and a close cooperation. The Institute of World History of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS) makes a special emphasis on the eighteenth and the first half of the nineteenth centuries51. The Institute for Slavic Studies of RAS analyses the All-Austrian topics52; the history of the Austro-Hungarian regions53; Polish territories54, Slovenian territories55. The Austrian studies are included in the curriculum of comparative imperial studies of both research institutes.

Researchers from the Department of History of Southern and Western Slavs, Faculty of History, Moscow State University (MSU), are successfully carrying out several studies of Neo-Slavism, Czech-German relations, Slavic history and culture56.

For several decades now, the Russian State University for the Humanities (RSUH) has been organizing projects of comparative studies of the Russian Empire and the Habsburg Monarchy. These interdisciplinary efforts brought together historians, culturologists and literary critics from Russia, Austria, Germany and Switzerland. Such an international scientific cooperation enables scholars to analyze the phenomenon of the Habsburg Monarchy on an interdisciplinary level, using a considerable array of sources recently made available to them. Because the key questions remain relevant to this day: What kind of influence, direct or indirect, did the Habsburg Monarchy have on Russia? What kind of interactions, visible as well as hidden, existed between these major poly-synthetic states for almost 300 years? What kind of effect do this mighty, vanished yet not forgotten empires have on the historical memory and historiography of modern societies?

The first successful joint projects revolved around the Austrian literature of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century, with the most prominent paper being "Vena kak magnit?" (Vienna as a magnet?) edited by Nina Pavlova and Gertraud Marinelli-Konig57. Yet another major project at the RSUH was initiated by Prof. Moritz Csáky, founder of the school of modern thought and head of the Commission for Cultural Studies and History of Theater, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna. Russian scholars together with their Austrian, German and American colleagues from the University of Graz undertook a large-scale comparative study entitled "Drug ili vrag. Avstro-Vengriya i Rossiya kak dva mnogosostavnykh gosudarstva v kontse 19 - nachale 20 vv." [Friend or Foe. Austria-Hungary and Russia as Two Polysynthetic States at the End of the Nineteenth and the Beginning of the Twentieth Centuries].

It resulted in the publication of three books: "Modern - modernism - modernizatsiya. Sravnitel'nyj analiz Rossii, Avstrii, Shvejtsarii na rubezhe 19 - nachale 20 vv." [Modern - Modernism - Modernization: Comparative Analysis of Russia, Austria, Switzerland on the Cusp of the Nineteenth and the Twentieth Centuries] (Moscow, 2004), "Mekhanizmy vlasti. Sravnitelnyj analiz politicheskoj kultury monarkhii Gabsburgov i Rossii" [Power Mechanisms: A Comparative Analysis of the Political Culture of the Habsburg Monarchy and Russia] (Moscow,, _ 2007), and "Konfliktszenarien um 1900: politisch - sozial - kulturell. Österreich-Ungarn und das Russische Imperium im Vergleich"58. In these publications, Russian, Austrian, German and Swiss scholars compared the models of power presentation, codes and symbols of collective identity of both states, their modernization dynamics and results, national policies and local contexts, conflict scenarios and visions of the future as perceived by the intellectuals and politicians on the cusp of two centuries. It was a first experience of close international cooperation that resulted not only in an active exchange of knowledge, but also in new approaches to the comparative analysis of two monarchies in this period.

Most importantly, these papers interpreted politics as the action zone of empires, where separate ethnic communities were perceived in the nationwide context. This approach allowed to reconstruct the life of the big empire in greater and more precise details, in all the beauty of its everyday life, as well as to understand the strategies of legitimization of nationalism of some of its ethnic groups. Yet the question remains -how should one evaluate the efficiency of specific imperial mechanisms? Should one devise special assessment criteria to determine the imperial center's ability to withstand various social and political challenges? What is more important, an experience in parliamentary government and constitutional development or a strong centralized control?

The Institute of Art Studies carried out several large-scale comparative studies in the art culture of Austria-Hungary.

The North-Caucasus Federal University (NSFU) together with RSUH and the Institute for Slavic Studies succeeded in gathering together different research papers on the Habsburg Monarchy from regional universities of Russia. As a result, there have already been seven editions of "Rossijsko-avstrijskij almanakh: Istoricheskie i kulturnye paralleli".

All Russian research efforts on the history of Austria-Hungary are united under the Russo-Austrian Commission of Historians (co-chaired by academician Aleksandr Oganovic Chubaryan and Prof. Stefan Karner) created in 2008. Its main focus is on the history of relations between the Russian Empire and the Habsburg Monarchy, the support of research projects on different aspects of the history of relations between Russia and Austria in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The Commission's Austrian co-chairman Prof. Stefan Karner encourages the development of Austrian studies in Russia. Thus he initiated various large-scale projects: multi-authored publications, exhibitions, international conferences.

The Commission contributed to the organization of several international conferences, including the ones on the Napoleonic wars, the World War I, the Cold War, the European international relations. In 2017-2018, the Commission members published "Rossiya i Avstriya: vekhi sovmest-noj istorii" [Russia and Austria: The Milestones of Common History] in both Russian and German59. In this publication, scholars of both countries presented their views on the events of their common history, from the first contacts at the end of the fifteenth century to this day.

Since 2013, in addition to its regular sessions, the Commission has been hosting summer schools for young scholars with the support of Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Research on War Consequences (Austria) and the European Union.

* * *

Thus, despite strict ideological filters during the Soviet period, the notions of plurality and integrity have been present in the Russian historiography for a long time. These days, the history of the Habsburg Monarchy is being recreated through its imperial experience and polysynthetic nature. There are a few trends that can be singled out.

Firstly, the historiography is slowly but surely moving from the simplified mythography towards a new research approach and critical analysis.

Secondly, the key topic of the so-called "small nations" and the "imperial bureaucratic power" underwent fundamental conceptual transformations in different historical periods. The thesis of oppressive ethnic-and language-specific discrimination and violent national conflicts has been gradually abandoned by scholars. At the same time, the national discourses of small nations, focused on the memories of historical traumas and the need to protect their own interests in their relations with the "big" (power-holding) nations, still continue to have a certain impact. Currently, the interpretation of the phenomenon of the polysynthetic state is mostly focused on its criteria and the limits of its democratization. Its history is reconstructed in accordance with political cycles: from an absolute monarchy to a police state, and then through the 1867 constitutional compromise to a parliamentary monarchy. Therefore, the core concepts of parliamentarism and constitutional monarchy feature high in the historical research.

Notes Примечания

1 Pavlenko O.V Geopolitical Visions in Russia: The Post-Soviet Interpretations // Russlands Imperiale Macht / Hrsg. von B. Pietrow-Ennker. Wien, Köln, Weimar: Boehlau Verlag, 2012. S. 103-123.

2 Бородавкин С.В. Гуманизм и гуманность как два языка культуры.

Санкт-Петербург, 2004. С. 11-60; Onuf N. Constructivism: A User's Manual // International Relations in a Constructed World / Ed. by V. Kubalkova, N.G. Onuf and P. Kowert. Armonk (NY): M.E. Sharpe, 1998. P. 58-78; Wendt A. The Agent-Structure-Problem in International Relations Theory // International Organization. 1987. Vol. 41. No. 3. P. 335-370; Campbell D. Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1992; Checkel J.T. Norms, Institutions and National Identity in Contemporary Europe // International Studies Quarterly. 1999. Vol. 43. P. 84-114.

3 РепинаЛ.П. Историческая наука на рубеже XX - XXI вв.: Социальные теории и историографическая практика. Москва, 2011. С. 9-25; Pavlenko O.V., BezborodovA.B. Die Aktualisierung historischer Erfahrung in russischen Lehrbüchern der 1990-er- und 2000er Jahre // Wirtschaft. Macht. Geschichte. Brüche und Kontinuitäten im 20. Jahrhundert. Festschrift Stefan Karner / Hrsg. von G. Schöpfer, B. Stelzl-Marx. Graz: Leykam, 2012. S. 589-607.

4 Islamov T.M., Miller A.I., Pavlenko O.V., Glazkova M., Romanenko S.A. Soviet Historiography on the Habsburg Empire // Austrian History Yearbook. 1995. Vol. 26. P. 165-188

5 Лаптева Л.П. История славяноведения в России в XIX веке. Москва, 2005; Лаптева Л.П. История славяноведения в России в конце XIX - первой трети XX в. Москва, 2012; Бузескул В.П. Всеобщая история и ее представители в России в XIX и начале XX века. Москва, 2008.

6 Лаптева Л.П. Кризис славяноведения в России в период с 1917 до середины 30-х годов // Slavia. Casopis pro slovanskou filologii. 2010. Vol. 79. P. 168.

7 Павленко О.В. Панславизм // Славяноведение. 1998. № 6. С. 43-60.

8 Лаптева Л.П. История славяноведения в России в конце XIX - первой трети XX в. Москва, 2012. С. 10, 11.

9 Лаптева Л.П. История западных и южных славян в освещении русской историографии XIX - XX вв. Санкт-Петербург, 2013.

10 Лаптева Л.П. История славяноведения в России в конце XIX - первой трети XX в. Москва, 2012. С. 9.

11 Пыпин А.Н. Панславизм в прошлом и настоящем (1878). Санкт-Петербург, 1913.

12 Павленко О.В. Реконструкция панславизма в трудах А.Н. Пыпина // А.Н. Пыпин и проблемы славяноведения. Москва; Ставрополь, 2005. С. 66-78.

13 Веселовский Г. Финансовое положение Австрийской империи // Журнал Министерства государственных имуществ. 1843. № 6. С. 285-316; Военная статистика Австрийской империи // Военный журнал. 1841. № 6. С. 21-140.

14 Митрофанов П. Оппозиция реформе Иоотфа II в Венгрии. Санкт-Петербург, 1905; Митрофанов П. Политическая деятельность Иосифа II, ее сторонники и ее враги (1780—1790). Санкт-Петербург, 1907.

15 Зотов В.Р. Записки Меттерниха // Исторический вестник. 1880. Февраль. С. 374-392; 1881. Май. С. 100-113; Июнь. С. 321-336; Инсаров XT.

Князь Меттерних: Его жизнь и политическая деятельность: Биографический очерк. Санкт-Петербург, 1905.

16 Собрание трактатов и конвенций, заключенных Россиею с иностранными державами. Т. 1-15. Санкт-Птербург, 1874-1909.

17 Татищев С.С. Император Николай I и австрийский двор // Исторический вестник. 1887. Январь. С. 82-109; Февраль. С. 364-401.

18 Сухотин Н.Н. Наполеон: Австро-французская война 1809 г.: Лекции по истории военного искусства, читанные в Николаевской академии Генерального штаба. Санкт-Петербур, 1885; Баскаков В.И. Состояние вооруженных сил Австрии в эпоху революционных войн: По лекциям, читанным в Николаевской академии Генерального штаба. Санкт-Петербург, 1898.

19 Конституционные учреждения Австрии и движения, как в Венгрии, так и в других областях империи // Библиотека для чтения. 1861. Т. 163. № 1. С. 7-17; Конституция Австрийской империи // Библиотека для чтения. 1861. Т. 164. № 3. С. 24-32; Башмаков А.А. Избирательная реформа в Австрии и выборы в рейхсрат по новому закону о всенародном голосовании. Санкт-Петербург, 1907.

20 Палаузов С.Н. Политическое и этнографическое состояние народностей Австрии. Санкт-Петербург, 1861; Ланге Н. Обозрение Австрийской империи. Санкт-Петербург, 1854.

21 Энгельс Ф. Начало конца Австрии //Маркс К., Энгельс Ф. Соч. Т. 4. С. 471-478; Маркс К. Россия использует Австрию. Варшавский конгресс // Маркс К., Энгельс Ф. Соч. Т. 15. С. 183-186; Энгельс Ф. Австрия. Развитие революции //Маркс К., Энгельс Ф. Соч. Т. 15. С. 242-245.

22 ПокровскийМ.П. М.П. Погодин // Историческая наука и борьба классов. Вып. 2. Москва, 1933. С. 266.

23 Ленин В.И. Критические заметки по национальному вопросу // Полн. собр. соч. Т. 24. С. 113-150.

24 Лаптева Л.П. Кризис славяноведения в России в период с 1917 до середины 30-х годов // Slavia. Casopis pro slovanskou filologii. 2010. Vol. 79. P. 167-180; Горяинов А.Н. В России и эмиграции: Очерки о славяноведении и славистах первой половины XX века. Москва, 2006.

25 Ашнин Ф.Д., Алпатов В.М. «Дело славистов»: 30-е годы. Москва, 1994. С.88-206.

26 Международная политика новейшего времени в договорах, нотах и декларациях. Ч. 1: От Французской революции до империалистической войны. Москва, 1925; Царская Россия в мировой войне. Ленинград, 1925.

27 Покровский М.П. Предисловие // Красный архив. 1922. №. 1. С. 5.

28 Державин Н.С. Вековая борьба славян с немецкими захватчиками. Москва, 1943; Козырев А.В. Славяне: Очерки о культуре славянских народов и их борьбе за свою независимость. Ставрополь, 1945.

29 Досталь М.Ю. Славянский конгресс в Белграде в 1946 г. // Славянские съезды XIX - XX вв. Москва, 1994. С. 128-142.

30 Hantsch H. Das Forschungsprojekt zu einer Gesamtdarstellung der Geschichte und Kultur der österreichisch-ungarischen Monarchie // Anzeiger der

Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. 1960. Bd. 97. S. 65-74; Павленко О.В. Зарубежная историография Габсбургской монархии: XIX - начало XX века // Новая и новейшая история. 2013. № 2. С. 97-102.

31 Кан С.Б. Революция 1848 г. в Австрии и Германии. Москва, 1948; Удальцов И.И. Очерки из истории национально-политической борьбы в Чехии в 1848 году. Москва, 1951.

32 Документы о венгерской революции и освободительной борьбе 1848 - 1849 гг. Будапешт, 1948; Клима А. 1848 год в Чехии: Начало чешского рабочего движения. Москва, 1949.

33 Рубинштейн Е.И. Из истории рабочего и социалистического движения в Австрии (Цислейтании) весной и летом 1917 года // Новая и новейшая история. 1960. № 4. С. 36-52; Турок В.М. Подъем австрийского рабочего движения под влиянием Великой Октябрьской социалистической революции. Январская забастовка 1918 г. // Известия Академии Наук СССР: Серия истории и философии. 1952. № 3. С. 280-290.

34 Турок В.М. Некоторые проблемы истории Австро-Венгрии // Советское славяноведение. 1965. № 4. С. 17-27; ПисаревЮ.А. Освободительное движение югославянских народов Австро-Венгрии, 1905 - 1914. Москва, 1962.

35 Турок В.М. Очерки истории Австрии, 1918 - 1929. Москва, 1955; Рубинштейн Е.И. Крушение австро-венгерской монархии. Москва, 1963.

36 Kohn H. Russia's Great Age: Encounter with Europe // The Mind of Modern Russia. Historical and Political Thought of Russia's Great Age / Ed. by H. Kohn. New Brunswick (NJ): Rutgers University Press, 1955. P. 9-11; Fadner F.J. Seventy Years of Pan-Slavism in Russia: Karazin to Danilevskii, 1800 -1870. Washington (DC): Georgetown University Press, 1962; Riasanovsky N.V. Russia and the West in the Teaching of the Slavophiles: A Study of Romantic Ideology. Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University Press, 1952.

37 Никитин С.А. Славянские комитеты в России в 1858 - 1876 годах. Москва, 1960.

38 Волков В.К. К вопросу о происхождении терминов «пангерманизм» и «панславизм» // Славяно-германские культурные связи и отношения. Москва, 1969. С.25-70.

39 Дьяков В.А. Славянский вопрос в общественной мысли дореволюционной России. Москва, 1993. С. 29-43.

40 Освободительные движения народов Австрийской империи. Москва, 1981. С.241-242.

41 Ненашева З.С. Идейно-политическая борьба в Чехии и Словакии в начале XX века: Чехи, словаки и неославизм. Москва, 1984.

42 Чубарьян А.О. Вторая мировая война в современной историографии и общественном сознании // Вестник Российской академии наук. 2016. Т. 86. № 5. С. 387-391; Безбородов А.Б., Корчинский А.В., Павленко О.В., Шкаренков П.П. Историческое знание и профессиональное гуманитарное образование // Вестник РГГУ. Серия: Политология. История. Международные отношения. Зарубежное регионоведение. Востоковедение. 2017. № 4-2 (10). С. 290-299; Безбородов А.Б., Корчинский А.В., Павленко О.В,

Шкаренков П.П. Культурная история как основа исторического образования гуманитариев // Вестник РГГУ. Серия: Политология. История. Международные отношения. Зарубежное регионоведение. Востоковедение. 2017. № 4-2 (10). С. 300-305; Pavlenko O.V., Bezborodov A.B. Die Aktualisierung historischer Erfahrung in russischen Lehrbüchern der 1990er und 2000er Jahre // Wirtschaft. Macht. Geschichte. Brüche und Kontinuitäten im 20. Jahrhundert. Festschrift Stefan Karner / Hrsg. von G. Schöpfer, B. Stelzl-Marx. Graz: Leykam, 2012. S. 589-607.

43 Павленко О.В. Зарубежная историография габсбургской монархии: XX - начало XXI века // Новая и новейшая история. 2013. № 2. С. 94-109.

44 Миронов Б.Н. Российская империя: от традиции к модерну. В 3 т. Т. 3. Санкт-Петербург, 2015. С. 606, 607.

45 Исламов Т.М. Империя Габсбургов: Становление и развитие, XVI -XIX вв. // Новая и новейшая история. 2001. № 2. С. 11-40.

46 Крючков И.В., Крючкова Н.Д. Россия и Австро-Венгрия: неполитический диалог двух империй в последней трети XIX - начале XX вв. // Былые годы. Российский исторический журнал. 2018. Т. 49. № 3. C. 1175-1185; Крючков И.В., Крючкова Н.Д. Историческая память и габсбургский миф: Посттравматический синдром человека ХХ в. и товар общества массового потребления // Диалог со временем. 2019. № 66. С. 86-99.

47 Миронов В.В. Австро-Венгерская армия в Первой мировой войне: Разрушение оплота Габсбургской монархии. Тамбов, 2011.

48 Фоминых С.Ф., Степанов А.О. Статус славянских языков в университетах Австро-Венгрии в конце XIX - начале XX в. (на материалах журнала «Славянский век» // Русин. 2016. № 4 (46). С. 141-152.

49 Медоваров М.В. Кризис Австро-Венгрии и русская консервативная мысль накануне Первой мировой войны // Вестник Нижегородского университета им. Н.И. Лобачевского. 2015. № 1. С. 69-77.

50 Семенов М.Ю. Исторический опыт организации народного просвещения в Австро-Венгрии и России в конце XIX - начале XX века (на примере Народного университета в Вене и Воронежского общества народных университетов) // Исторические, философские, политические и юридически науки, культурология и искусствоведение. Вопросы теории и практики. 2016. № 1 (63). С. 159-164.

51 Петрова М.А. Внешнеполитические проекты Екатерины II и Иосифа II // Российско-австрийский альманах: Исторические и культурные параллели. Вып. 5. Пятигорск, 2014. С. 27-39.

52 Хаванова О.В. Усердие, честолюбие и карьера: Чиновничество в монархии Габсбургов в эпоху просвещенного абсолютизма. Москва, 2018; Политические партии и общественные движения в монархии Габсбургов: 1848 - 1914 гг.: Очерки. Москва, 2018.

53 Хаванова О.В. Венгрия в «Большом пестром саду» Франца Иосифа: политическая реальность и исторический миф // Славянский мир в третьем тысячелетии. 2017. № 12. С. 274-281.

54 Клопова М.Э. Русины, русские, украинцы: Национальные движения восточнославянского населения Галиции в XIX - начале ХХ века. Москва,

2016.

55 Чуркина И.В. Россия и славяне в идеологии словенских национальных деятелей XVI в. - 1914 г. Москва, 2017; Кирилина Л.А. Влияние Балканских войн 1912 - 1913 годов на национально-политические процессы в словенских землях // Славяноведение. 2014. № 1. С. 3-11.

56 Лаптева Л.П. Русско-чешские научные связи во второй половине XIX - первой четверти XX века: По данным переписки ученых // Новая и новейшая история. 2016. № 1. С. 68-93; Ненашева З.С. Чехи в России между двух революций: мечты, иллюзии и реальность // Современная Европа. 2017. № 7 (79). С. 88-97; Ждановская А.А. Первый среди равных? Австрийское языковое законодательство 1880-х гг. и дискуссия о государственном языке Цислейтании // Вестник Московского университета. Серия 8: История. 2018. № 4. С. 46-59; Фирсов Е.Ф. Т.Г. Масарик в России и борьба за независимость чехов и словаков. Москва, 2012.

57 Wien als Magnet? Schriftsteller aus Ost-, Ostmittel- und Südosteuropa über die Stadt / Hrsg. von G. Marinelli-König, N. Pavlova. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1996.

58 Konfliktszenarien um 1900: politisch - sozial - kulturell: Österreich-Ungarn und das Russische Imperium im Vergleich / Hrsg. von P. Deutschmann, V. Munz, O. Pavlenko. Wien: Praesens Verlag, 2011.

59 Россия - Австрия = Österreich - Russland: Вехи совместной истории. Москва, 2017; Mueller W., Pavlenko O. Russland und die Habsburgermonarchie 1854-1914: Von Krisen zum Untergang // Österreich - Russland: Stationen gemeinsamer Geschichte / Hrsg. von S. Karner, A.O. Tschubarjan. Graz; Wien: Leykam, 2018. S. 63-90; Leidinger H., Sergeev E. Der Erste Weltkrieg: Der Prozess des Zerfalls beider Monarchien // Österreich - Russland: Stationen gemeinsamer Geschichte / Hrsg. von S. Karner, A.O. Tschubarjan. Graz; Wien: Leykam, 2018. S. 91-120.

Author, Abstract, Key words

Olga V. Pavlenko - Сandidate of History, Professor, Vice Rector for Scientific Affairs, Russian State University for the Humanities (Moscow, Russia)

pavlenko@rggu.ru

There are topics in historiography which have a peculiar destiny. Following public preferences, they may rise to the peak of attention triggering heated discussions or may fall from that height. Such was the case with the studies of the Habsburg monarchy phenomenon in the Russian intellectual tradition. The efforts to embrace it fall into several stages. The surges of acute attention were followed by its decline as the history of this state on the Danube emerged as a background for more significant developments in the Slavic lands. And then, as a response to contrastive imperial studies, interest was aroused toward holistic studies of monarchy, which brought about new discussions and conceptions.

Despite its 150-year-long tradition, the Russian historiography of the Habsburg monarchy failed to shape into a separate intellectual project. It is ac-

counted for by a number of factors coexisting for a long time, which directly influenced the historiographic situation. These are: 1) geopolitical factors; 2) Slavic factors; 3) gaps in the continuity of scientific schools and the abrupt change of paradigms in Russian historical science. Huge historiographic materials are used to analyze the turning points and crucial stages in the study of the phenomenon of the Habsburg monarchy in Russia's intellectual tradition during one and a half century.

Habsburg monarchy, Slavs, Czechs, Slovaks, Hungarians, Pan-Slavism, Revolutions of 1848-1849, World War I, Cold War, ideological struggle, historiography, Slavic studies, historical myth.

References (Articles from Scientific Journals)

1. Bezborodov, A.B.; Korchinskiy, A.V.; Pavlenko, O.V., Shkarenkov, P.P. Istoricheskoye znaniye i professionalnoye gumanitarnoye obrazovaniye [Historical Knowledge and Professional Education in the Humanities.]. Vestnik RGGU. Seriya: Politologiya. Istoriya. Mezhdunarodnyye otnosheniya. Zaru-bezhnoye regionovedeniye. Vostokovedeniye, 2017, no. 4-2 (10), pp. 290-299. (In Russian)

2. Bezborodov, A.B.; Korchinskiy, A.V.; Pavlenko, O.V.; Shkarenkov, P.P. Kulturnaya istoriya kak osnova istoricheskogo obrazovaniya gumanitariyev [Cultural History as the Basis of the Historical Education of Humanists.]. Vestnik RGGU. Seriya: Politologiya. Istoriya. Mezhdunarodnyye otnosheniya. Zar-ubezhnoye regionovedeniye. Vostokovedeniye, 2017, no. 4-2 (10), pp. 300-305. (In Russian)

3. Checkel, J.T. Norms, Institutions and National Identity in Contemporary Europe. International Studies Quarterly, 1999, vol. 43, pp. 84-114. (In English)

4. Chubaryan, A.O. Vtoraya mirovaya voyna v sovremennoy istoriografii i obshchestvennom soznanii [The Second World War in Contemporary Historiography and Public Consciousness.]. VestnikRossiyskoy akademii nauk, 2016, vol. 86, no. 5, pp. 387-391. (In Russian)

5. Fominykh, S.F.; Stepanov, A.O. Status slavyanskikh yazykov v univer-sitetakh Avstro-Vengrii v kontse XIX - nachale XX v. (na materialakh zhur-nala "Slavyanskiy vek" [The Status of Slavic Languages in Austro-Hungarian Universities in the Late-Nineteenth and Early-Twentieth Centuries (Based on Materials of the Magazine "Slavic Century".).]. Rusin, 2016, no. 4 (46), pp. 141-152. (In Russian)

6. Hantsch, H. Das Forschungsprojekt zu einer Gesamtdarstellung der Geschichte und Kultur der österreichisch-ungarischen Monarchie. Anzeiger der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1960, bd. 97, s. 65-74. (In German)

7. Islamov, T.M. Imperiya Gabsburgov: Stanovleniye i razvitiye, XVI - XIX vv. [The Habsburg Empire: Formation and Development, 16th - 19th Centuries.].

Novaya i noveyshaya istoriya, 2001, no. 2, pp. 11-40. (In Russian)

8. Islamov, T.M.; Miller, A.I.; Pavlenko, O.V.; Glazkova, M.; Romanenko, S.A. Soviet Historiography on the Habsburg Empire. Austrian History Yearbook, 1995, vol. 26, pp. 165-188. (In English)

9. Khavanova, O.V. Vengriya v "Bolshom pestrom sadu" Frantsa Iosifa: politicheskaya realnost i istoricheskiy mif [Hungary in the "Big Colorful Garden" of Franz Joseph: Political Reality and Historical Myth.]. Slavyanskiy mir v tretyem tysyacheletii, 2017, no. 12, pp. 274-281. (In Russian)

10. Kirilina, L.A. Vliyaniye Balkanskikh voyn 1912 - 1913 godov na nat-sionalno-politicheskiye protsessy v slovenskikh zemlyakh [The Influence of the Balkan Wars of 1912 - 1913 on National-Political Processes in the Slovenian Lands.]. Slavyanovedeniye, 2014, no. 1, pp. 3-11. (In Russian)

11. Kryuchkov, I.V.; Kryuchkova, N.D. Istoricheskaya pamyat i gabsburg-skiy mif: Posttravmaticheskiy sindrom cheloveka XX v. i tovar obshchestva massovogo potrebleniya [Historical Memory and the Habsburg Myth: Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome in the Twentieth-Century Individual and the Product of Mass Consumption Society.]. Dialog so vremenem, 2019, no. 66, pp. 86-99. (In Russian)

12. Kryuchkov, I.V.; Kryuchkova, N.D. Rossiya i Avstro-Vengriya: nepoliticheskiy dialog dvukh imperiy v posledney treti XIX - nachale XX vv. [Russia and Austria-Hungary: Non-Political Dialogue of Two Empires in the Last Third ofthe 19th - the Beginning ofthe 20th Centuries.]. Bylyye gody. Ros-siyskiy istoricheskiy zhurnal, 2018, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 1175-1185. (In Russian)

13. Lapteva, L.P. Krizis slavyanovedeniya v Rossii v period s 1917 do se-rediny 30-kh godov [The Crisis of Slavic Studies in Russia from 1917 to the Mid-1930s.]. Slavia. Casopis pro slovanskou filologii, 2010, vol. 79, pp. 167180. (In Russian)

14. Lapteva, L.P. Russko-cheshskiye nauchnyye svyazi vo vtoroy polovine XIX - pervoy chetverti XX veka: Po dannym perepiski uchenykh [Russian-Czech Scientific Relations from the Second Half of the Nineteenth to the First Quarter of the Twentieth Centuries as Described in the Correspondence of Scientists.]. Novaya i noveyshaya istoriya, 2016, no. 1, pp. 68-93. (In Russian)

15. Medovarov, M.V. Krizis Avstro-Vengrii i russkaya konservativnaya mysl nakanune Pervoy mirovoy voyny [The Austro-Hungarian Crisis and Russian Conservative Thought on the Eve of the First World War.]. Vestnik Nizhegorod-skogo universiteta im. N.I. Lobachevskogo, 2015, no. 1, pp. 69-77. (In Russian)

16. Nenasheva, Z.S. Chekhi v Rossii mezhdu dvukh revolyutsiy: mechty, illyuzii i realnost [Czechs in Russia between Two Revolutions: Dreams, Illusions, and Reality.]. Sovremennaya Evropa, 2017, no. 7 (79), pp. 88-97. (In Russian)

17. Pavlenko, O.V. Panslavizm [Pan-Slavism.]. Slavyanovedeniye, 1998, no. 6, pp. 43-60. (In Russian)

18. Pavlenko, O.V. Zarubezhnaya istoriografiya Gabsburgskoy monarkhii: XIX - nachalo XX veka [Foreign Historiography of the Habsburg Monarchy, 19th - Early 20th Centuries.]. Novaya i noveyshaya istoriya, 2013, no. 2, pp. 94-109. (In Russian)

19. Rubinshteyn, E.I. Iz istorii rabochego i sotsialisticheskogo dvizheniya

v Avstrii (Tsisleytanii) vesnoy i letom 1917 goda [From the History of the Workers' and Socialist Movement in Austria (Cisleithania) in the Spring and Summer of 1917.]. Novaya i noveyshaya istoriya, 1960, no. 4, pp. 36-52. (In Russian)

20. Semenov, M.Yu. Istoricheskiy opyt organizatsii narodnogo prosveshcheniya v Avstro-Vengrii i Rossii v kontse XIX - nachale XX veka (na primere Narodnogo universiteta v Vene i Voronezhskogo obshchestva narodnykh universitetov) [The Historical Experience of the Organization of Public Education in Austria-Hungary and Russia in the Late 19th - Early 20th Centuries (Based on the Examples of the People's University in Vienna and the Voronezh Society of People's Universities.).]. Istoricheskiye, filosofskiye, politicheskiye i yuridicheski nauki, kulturologiya i iskusstvovedeniye. Voprosy teorii ipraktiki, 2016, no. 1 (63), pp. 159-164. (In Russian)

21. Turok, V.M. Nekotoryye problemy istorii Avstro-Vengrii [Some Problems of the History of Austria-Hungary.]. Sovetskoye slavyanovedeniye, 1965, no. 4, pp. 17-27. (In Russian)

22. Turok, V.M. Podyem avstriyskogo rabochego dvizheniya pod vliyaniy-em Velikoy Oktyabrskoy sotsialisticheskoy revolyutsii. Yanvarskaya zabastov-ka 1918 g. [The Rise of the Austrian Workers' Movement under the Influence of the Great October Socialist Revolution. January Strike of 1918.]. Izvestiya Akademii Nauk SSSR Seriya istorii i filosofii, 1952, no. 3, pp. 280-290. (In Russian)

23. Wendt, A. The Agent-Structure-Problem in International Relations Theory. International Organization, 1987, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 335-370. (In English)

24. Zhdanovskaya, A.A. Pervyy sredi ravnykh? Avstriyskoye yazykovoye zakonodatelstvo 1880-kh gg. i diskussiya o gosudarstvennom yazyke TSisley-tanii [First among Equals? Austrian Language Legislation of the 1880s and the Discussion of the Official Language of Cisleithania.]. VestnikMoskovskogo uni-versiteta. Seriya 8: Istoriya, 2018, no. 4, pp. 46-59. (In Russian)

(Essays, Articles, and Papers from Books, Proceedings, and Research Collections)

25. Dostal, M.Yu. Slavyanskiy kongress v Belgrade v 1946 g. [Slavic Congress in Belgrade in 1946.]. Slavyanskiye syezdy XIX - XX vv. [Slavic Congresses of the 19th - 20th Centuries.]. Moscow, 1994, pp. 128-142. (In Russian)

26. Kohn, H. Russia's Great Age: Encounter with Europe. The Mind of Modern Russia: Historical and Political Thought of Russia's Great Age / Ed. by H. Kohn. New Brunswick (NJ): Rutgers University Press, 1955, pp. 3-33. (In English)

27. Leidinger, H.; Sergeev, E. Der Erste Weltkrieg: Der Prozess des Zerfalls beider Monarchien. Österreich - Russland: Stationen gemeinsamer Geschichte / Hrsg. von S. Karner, A.O. Tschubarjan. Graz; Wien: Leykam, 2018, s. 91-120. (In German)

28. Mueller, W.; Pavlenko, O. Russland und die Habsburgermonarchie 1854-1914: Von Krisen zum Untergang. Österreich - Russland: Stationen ge-

meinsamer Geschichte / Hrsg. von S. Karner, A.O. Tschubaijan. Graz; Wien: Leykam, 2018, s. 63-90. (In German)

29. Onuf, N. Constructivism: A User's Manual. International Relations in a Constructed World / Ed. by V. Kubalkova, N.G. Onuf and P. Kowert. Armonk (NY): M.E. Sharpe, 1998, pp. 58-78. (In English)

30. Pavlenko, O.V. Geopolitical Visions in Russia: The Post-Soviet Interpretations. Russlands Imperiale Macht / Hrsg. von B. Pietrow-Ennker. Wien, Köln, Weimar: Boehlau Verlag, 2012, s. 103-123. (In English)

31. Pavlenko, O.V. Rekonstruktsiya panslavizma v trudakh A.N. Pypina [Reconstruction of Panslavism in the Works of A.N. Pypin.]. A.N. Pypin iprob-lemy slavyanovedeniya [A.N. Pypin and Problems of Slavic Studies.]. Moskva; Stavropol, 2005. S. 66-78. (In Russian)

32. Pavlenko, O.V.; Bezborodov, A.B. Die Aktualisierung historischer Erfahrung in russischen Lehrbüchern der 1990er und 2000er Jahre. Wirtschaft. Macht. Geschichte. Brüche und Kontinuitäten im 20. Jahrhundert. Festschrift Stefan Karner / Hrsg. von G. Schöpfer, B. Stelzl-Marx. Graz: Leykam, 2012, s. 589-607. (In German)

33. Petrova, M.A. Vneshnepoliticheskiye proyekty Ekateriny II i Iosifa II [Foreign Policy Projects of Catherine II and Joseph II.]. Rossiysko-avstriyskiy almanakh: Istoricheskiye i kulturnyye paralleli [Russian-Austrian Almanac: Historical and Cultural Parallels.]. Pyatigorsk, 2014, vol. 5, pp. 27-39. (In Russian)

34. Volkov, V.K. K voprosu o proiskhozhdenii terminov "pangermanizm" i "panslavizm" [On the Question of the Origin of the Terms "pan-Germanism" and "pan-Slavism".]. Slavyano-germanskiye kulturnyye svyazi i otnosheniya [Slavic-German Cultural Ties and Relations.]. Moscow, 1969, pp. 25-70. (In Russian)

(Monographs)

35. Ashnin, F.D.; Alpatov, V.M. "Delo slavistov": 30-e gody ["The Slavists' Case": The 1930s.]. Moscow, 1994, 284 p. (In Russian)

36. Borodavkin, S.V. Gumanizm i gumannost kak dva yazyka kultury [Humanism and Humanity as Two Cultural Languages.]. St. Petersburg, 2004, 239 p. (In Russian)

37. Buzeskul, V.P. Vseobshchaya istoriya i eye predstaviteli v Rossii v XIX i nachale XX veka [World History and its Representatives in Russia in the 19th and Early 20th Centuries.]. Moscow, 2008, 832 p. (In Russian)

38. Campbell, D. Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1992, 269 p. (In English)

39. Churkina, I.V. Rossiya i slavyane v ideologii slovenskikh natsionalnykh deyateley XVI v. - 1914 g. [Russia and the Slavs in the Ideology of Slovenian National Figures of the 16th Century - 1914.]. Moscow, 2017, 574 p. (In Russian)

40. Fadner, F.J. Seventy Years of Pan-Slavism in Russia: Karazin to Dani-

levskii, 1800 - 1870. Washington (DC): Georgetown University Press, 1962, 429 p. (In English)

41. Firsov, E.F. T.G. Masarik v Rossii i borba za nezavisimost chekhov i slovakov [Thomas Masaryk in Russia and the Struggle for Independence of Czechs and Slovaks.]. Moscow, 2012, 335 p. (In Russian)

42. Goryainov, A.N. V Rossii i emigratsii: Ocherki o slavyanovedenii i slav-istakh pervoy poloviny XX veka [In Russia and Emigration: Essays on Slavic Studies and Slavists of the First Half of the 20th Century.]. Moscow, 2006, 320 p. (In Russian)

43. Dyakov, V.A. Slavyanskiy vopros v obshchestvennoy mysli dorevolyut-sionnoy Rossii [The Slavic Question in the Public Thought of Pre-Revolution-ary Russia.]. Moscow, 1993, 205 p. (In Russian)

44. Khavanova, O.V. Userdiye, chestolyubiye i karyera: Chinovnichestvo v monarkhii Gabsburgov v epokhu prosveshchennogo absolyutizma [Zeal, Ambition, and Career: Officialdom in the Habsburg Monarchy in the Age of Enlightened Absolutism.]. Moscow, 2018, 359 p. (In Russian)

45. Klopova, M.E. Rusiny, russkiye, ukraintsy: Natsionalnyye dvizheniya vostochnoslavyanskogo naseleniya Galitsii v XIX - nachale XX veka [Rusyns, Russians, and Ukrainians: National Movements of the East Slavic Population of Galicia in the 19th - Early 20th Centuris.]. Moscow, 2016, 279 p. (In Russian)

46. Lapteva, L.P. Istoriya slavyanovedeniya v Rossii v XIX veke [A History of Slavic Studies in Russia in the 19th Century.]. Moscow, 2005, 847 p. (In Russian)

47. Lapteva, L.P. Istoriya slavyanovedeniya v Rossii v kontse XIX - pervoy treti XX v. [A History of Slavic Studies in Russia at the End of the 19th - First Third of the 20th Centuries.]. Moscow, 2012, 839 p. (In Russian)

48. Lapteva, L.P. Istoriya zapadnykh i yuzhnykh slavyan v osveshchenii russkoy istoriografii XIX - XX vv. [A History of the Western and Southern Slavs in the Coverage of Russian Historiography of the 19th - 20th Centuries.]. St. Petersburg, 2013, 527 p. (In Russian)

49. Mironov, B.N. Rossiyskaya imperiya: ot traditsii k modernu [The Russian Empire: From Tradition to Modernity.]. In 3 vols. St. Petersburg, 2015, vol. 3, 989 p. (In Russian)

50. Mironov, V.V. Avstro-Vengerskaya armiya v Pervoy mirovoy voyne: Razrusheniye oplota Gabsburgskoy monarkhii [The Austro-Hungarian Army in the First World War: The Destruction of the Stronghold of the Habsburg Monarchy.]. Tambov, 2011, 408 p. (In Russian)

51. Nenasheva, Z.S. Ideyno-politicheskaya borba v Chekhii i Slovakii v nachale XX veka: Chekhi, slovaki i neoslavizm [Ideological and Political Struggle in the Czech Republic and Slovakia at the Beginning of the 20th Century: Czechs, Slovaks, and Neo-Slavism.]. Moscow, 1984, 240 p. (In Russian)

52. Nikitin, S.A. Slavyanskiye komitety v Rossii v 1858 - 1876 godakh [The Slavic Committees in Russia, 1858 - 1876.]. Moscow, 1960, 362 p. (In Russian)

53. Pisarev, Yu.A. Osvoboditelnoye dvizheniye yugoslavyanskikh narodov Avstro-Vengrii, 1905 - 1914 [The Liberation Movement of the Yugoslav Peoples of Austria-Hungary, 1905 - 1914.]. Moscow, 1962, 419 p. (In Russian)

54. Pypin, A.N. Panslavizm v proshlom i nastoyashchem (1878) [Pan-Slavism in the Past and Present (1878).]. St. Petersburg, 1913, 189 p. (In Russian)

55. Repina, L.P. Istoricheskaya nauka na rubezhe XX - XXI vv.: Sotsial'nyye

teorii i istoriograficheskaya praktika [The Historical Science at the Turn of the 19th - 20th Centuries: Social Theories and Historiographic Practice.]. Moscow, 2011, 559 p. (In Russian)

56. Riasanovsky, N.V. Russia and the West in the Teaching of the Slavophiles: A Study of Romantic Ideology. Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University Press, 1952, 244 p. (In English)

57. Rubinshteyn, E.I. Krusheniye avstro-vengerskoy monarkhii [The Ruin of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy.]. Moscow, 1963, 428 p. (In Russian)

58. Turok, V.M. Ocherki istorii Avstrii, 1918 - 1929 [Essays on the History of Austria, 1918 - 1929.]. Moscow, 1955, 588 p. (In Russian)

59. Udaltsov, I.I. Ocherki iz istorii natsionalno-politicheskoy borby v Chek-hii v 1848 godu [Essays from the History of the National-Political Struggle in the Czech Republic in 1848.]. Moscow, 1951, 252 p. (In Russia)

Автор, аннотация, ключевые слова

Павленко Ольга Вячеславовна - канд. ист. наук, профессор, проректор по научной работе, Российский государственный гуманитарный университет (Москва)

pavlenko@rggu.ru

В историографии есть темы, которые имеют особую судьбу. Общественные предпочтения то возносят их на вершину интереса, возбуждая бурные дискуссии, то ниспровергают. Осмысление феномена монархии Габсбургов в интеллектуальной традиции России постигло именно такая судьба. Это осмысление проходило в несколько этапов. Пики острого интереса сменялись потерей актуальности, а история Дунайского государства воспринималась лишь как фон для более значимых процессов в славянских землях. Затем вновь на волне сравнительных имперских исследований пробуждался интерес к комплексному изучению монархии, и тогда снова возрождались дискуссии и разрабатывались новые концепции.

Несмотря на длительную традицию почти в сто пятьдесят лет, российская историография монархии Габсбургов не сложилась в отдельный интеллектуальный проект. Причина кроется в долговременном существовании ряда факторов, напрямую влиявших на историографическую ситуацию. Их можно объединить в три группы: 1) геополитические факторы; 2) славянские факторы; 3) разрывы преемственности в научных школах и резкая смена парадигм в отечественной исторической науке. В статье на огромном историографичесом материале рассматриваются переломные моменты и этапы осмысление феномена монархии Габсбургов в интеллектуальной традиции России на протяжении полутора веков.

Габсбургская монархия, славянство, чехи, словаки, венгры панславизм, революции 1848-1849 годов, Первая мировая война, Холодная война, идеологическая борьба, историография, славяноведение, исторический миф.